If you have ever installed another or older PET/SFS, remove them all and delete '/lib/modules/*/misc/vbox*.ko', if they are exists, before loading the new.

Hi Shinobar,
effectively I've installed other pets and I removed them (I have to say that I also installed other sfs libreoffice and skype for example... I have to remove them too, or only virtualbox sfs and/or pet)?

This afternoon I'll delete
'/lib/modules/*/misc/vbox*.ko'
and I'll load the last virtualbox sfs.

Hmmmm, it looks like it's going to take me a long time to get up to speed with Vbox. Not for the faint hearted by the look.

Quick suggestion: would it be useful to try to tie future Vbox versions more closely to the Puppy version? eg; maybe the next Vbox for 5.x puppies could start with 5.x rather than 4.x? Just to help clarity a little for future newcomers?

(obviously it wasn't this way in the past, but maybe some future value in linking them more?)

I'm thinking of packaging VirtualBox differently than I have been doing. Essentially, instead of a binary-only pet for each kernel and one with source that compiles on installation, there would be a base pet, with just VirtualBox, without drivers and source, the source would be available as another package, and then just the drivers for each kernel would be available as separate pets.

This would take me from using just shy of 300 MB for VBox uploads to just over 30 MB, but more steps would be involved in VBox installation- namely, first the base pet, then the drivers, then (optionally) the source and extra languages. A simple little HTML guide would be made, as is done now.

To get a better idea of what I mean, you can see the differences between my current method and the one I'm talking about here- though I haven't made a guide for the new method yet.

... just feel like I should float the idea to make sure it won't cause any more difficulty or confusion than what I'm doing now. Suggestions, feedback, requests, etc., would be appreciated.
Thanks!

From what I have seen, you have been a great help in this community by making it easy for users to run a VM host and run VM guests.

I am NOT a system builder. so I am probably not the best for offering an answer.

Since I deal with Objectives, then reviewing the success of the objectives, you may want to access whether there is a method/methodology that would be foolproof in having someone go from your PET to a running VB host and guest. That would be one view from my perspective.

Another view is an ISO that is a complete running Puppy VB host. This could be extremely useful to the many newbies who want to dip the toe in the water, but, have a tendency to make mistakes using even the most elementary of HTML instructions.

Lastly, I have to ask if the problem you are addressing is one on having bandwidth when you product a PET(s) or one where your workload and the support you give, would diminish should you change to this newer strategy.

Hopefully this helps as I, for one, would appreciate a 32bit or a 64bit "OOTB Live media Puppy VB host ISO" that could be deployed without ever having touch a DEVX, or PET or source or drivers or... Further, this ISO would have considered where I can store my VM guests. As I understand, I might have KVM considerations that could be brought into play to assist performance of the VM guest that are assigned KVM booting vs para-virtualized. This would allow a Puppy implementation that would match what we get from other VM host vendors And, it would make everything so, so easy to start into the VM realm with Puppy. Also, a 64bit version would make so much sense, because most have the resources to easily support the Puppy desktop as well as a VM guest which is actively doing something useful (this would kinda insure some user doesn't try this on a 256MB platform, and then, complain). LightHouse (both versions) come to mind as an easy desktop for newbies to work from with the resources you would need. Maybe you could work with TaZoC or produce a copy of his effort for a mainstream VM host.

Hope this helps,_________________Get ACTIVE Create Circles; Do those good things which benefit people's needs!
We are all related ... Its time to show that we know this!
3 Different Puppy Search Engineor use DogPile

From what I have seen, you have been a great help in this community by making it easy for users to run a VM host and run VM guests.

Kind words! Thank you!

Quote:

I am NOT a system builder. so I am probably not the best for offering an answer.

Well, my view is that anyone who uses the packages I build is qualified to address the issue. My main concern is whether or not the new method would introduce any (extra) confusion.

Quote:

Since I deal with Objectives, then reviewing the success of the objectives, you may want to access whether there is a method/methodology that would be foolproof in having someone go from your PET to a running VB host and guest. That would be one view from my perspective.

Another view is an ISO that is a complete running Puppy VB host. This could be extremely useful to the many newbies who want to dip the toe in the water, but, have a tendency to make mistakes using even the most elementary of HTML instructions.

Actually, an ISO like that might not be a bad idea, but I'd be clueless where to begin. I've never built or trimmed a Puppy before, but I'd think a somewhat cut-down Puplet would be ideal, to give the VM some more breathing room on whatever hardware gets used. In any case, that would be a bit beyond my scope.

Quote:

Lastly, I have to ask if the problem you are addressing is one on having bandwidth when you product a PET(s) or one where your workload and the support you give, would diminish should you change to this newer strategy.

My main idea is that keeping the drivers separate from the base package might allow easier upgrades from one Puppy version or kernel to another. You just download a few hundred KB driver package, use your old VBOX_base package, assuming you've kept it somewhere local, and that's that. The smaller total file size is a bonus of sorts, and having been on dialup for several years, I can also appreciate that lesser filesizes to download can be very nice, even if it might not affect me anymore.

I suppose I could offer some sort of combination of the two packaging methods. I'll bounce it around my brain a bit more. For now, though, as I upload version 4.1.8, I'll offer both so that people can try out and pick which one they prefer.

Quote:

Hopefully this helps as I, for one, would appreciate a 32bit or a 64bit "OOTB Live media Puppy VB host ISO" that could be deployed without ever having touch a DEVX, or PET or source or drivers or... Further, this ISO would have considered where I can store my VM guests. As I understand, I might have KVM considerations that could be brought into play to assist performance of the VM guest that are assigned KVM booting vs para-virtualized. This would allow a Puppy implementation that would match what we get from other VM host vendors And, it would make everything so, so easy to start into the VM realm with Puppy. Also, a 64bit version would make so much sense, because most have the resources to easily support the Puppy desktop as well as a VM guest which is actively doing something useful (this would kinda insure some user doesn't try this on a 256MB platform, and then, complain). LightHouse (both versions) come to mind as an easy desktop for newbies to work from with the resources you would need. Maybe you could work with TaZoC or produce a copy of his effort for a mainstream VM host.

Unfortunately, I don't have any 64-bit hardware to work with, so any efforts there would have to come from somebody else, unless Curbside Christmas come a few hours early this year! :p

I seem to recall someone- may even have been you- recommending I try to collaborate with TaZoC, too, if only to make all thr VBox packages available in one thread, but I think I got bogged down in non-Puppy work. That idea is probably still in a thread or PM somewhere.
I'll take a look and maybe send a PM to TaZoC sometime today, before anything else crops up and distracts me too much!

A question, though: What exactly makes LightHouse Pup a good base for this? If it's simply familiarity and approachability of the interface and default setup, then that would tend to run counter to my first impulse- which I mentioned above- which would be to use a fairly bare, minimal Puppy, since the less hardware Puppy needs and uses, the more the VM could use. (I seem to recall LHP has a pretty full and fleshed-out desktop setup, but the last time I really tried it was version 443G, or something like that.) If it's something else about LHP that makes it ideal, please let me know.

Quote:

Hope this helps.

Yup! This was pretty much what I meant when I asked for feedback. I can't promise much, but it doesn't hurt to think about these things.